Controversias científicas y tradición filosófica

Carlos Alberto Cardona

doi:10.5007/1808-1711.2023.e90691

Authors

Carlos Alberto Cardona Universidad del Rosario

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5007/1808-1711.2023.e90691

Keywords:

Cartesian dictum, Anarchist dictum, Consensus, Controversy, Triangulation

Abstract

The article discusses the following question: why has the traditional philosophy of science been reluctant to seriously deal with scientific controversies? An answer is offered and an alternative is suggested. This alternative gives a leading role to the study of controversies within the framework of the philosophy of science. This proposal is supported, firstly, by a brief review of the research methodology employed by Johannes Kepler and, secondly, by the study of the emergence of quantum mechanics by Mara Beller. The defense of the study of controversies is based on the recognition of the other one as the founding point of scientific objectivity and in the proposal of a kind of triangulation.

Author Biography

Carlos Alberto Cardona, Universidad del Rosario

Profesor titular, Escuela de Ciencias Humanas, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia

References

Aristóteles. 1982. Ética Nicomaquea [Ética]. Trad. Francisco de P. Samaranch. Madrid: Aguilar Ediciones.

Aristóteles. 1990. Retórica [Retórica]. Trad. Quintín Racionero. Madrid: Editorial Gredos.

Aristóteles. 1994. Metafísica [Metafísica]. Trad. Tomás Calvo Martínez. Madrid: Editorial Gredos.

Beller, M. 1999. Quantum Dialogue: the making of a revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Campbell, N. 1952 [1921]. What is Science? Nueva York: Dover Pulications.

Cardona, C. 2016. Kepler: Analogies in the search for the law of refraction. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 59: 22-35.

Cardona, C. & Gutiérrez, J. 2020. The Law of refraction and Kepler’s Heuristic. Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 74 (1): 45-75.

Davidson, D. 2001 [1992]. The Second Person. In: Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective, p. 107-121. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Davidson, D. 2001 [1997]. The Emergence of Thought. In: Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective, p. 123-134. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Descartes, René. 1908 [1628]. Regulae ad directionem ingenii. In: C. Adam & P. Tannery (eds), Oeuvres de Descartes, vol x, p. 359-469. París: Leopold Cerf (ed.); publicadas con el auspicio del Ministerio de Instrucción Pública.

Feyerabend, P. 1981 [1960]. Professor Bohm’s Philosophy of Nature. In: Philosophical Papers, vol 1, p. 219-454. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Feyerabend, P. 1986 [1975]. Tratado contra el método. Trad. Diego Ribes. Madrid: Editorial Tecnos.

Feyerabend, P. 1984 [1981]. Adiós a la razón. Trad. José R. de Rivera. Madrid: Editorial Tecnos.

Forman P. 1984. Cultura en Weimar, causalidad y teoría cuántica 1918-1927. Trad. José Manuel Sánchez Ron. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.

Galileo G. 1994 [1630]. Diálogo sobre los dos máximos sistemas del mundo ptolemaico y copernicano. Trad. Antonio Beltrán Marí. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.

Galileo, G. 1981 [1623]. El Ensayador. Trad. José Manuel Revuelta. Buenos Aires: Aguilar Argentina.

Goethe, J. W. von. 1991 [1808]. Esbozo de una teoría de los colores. In: Obras Completas, tomo I, p. 482-734. Trad. Rafael Cansinos Asséns. Madrid: Aguilar Ediciones.

Goodman, N. 1951. The Structure of Appearance. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.

Hanson, N. R. 1958. Patterns of Discovery, an Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science. Londres: Cambridge at the University Press.

Kepler, J. 2000 [1604]. Paralipomena to Witelo & Optical Part of Astronomy. Trad. William Donahue. Santa Fe: Green Lion Press.

Kepler, J. 2020 [1609]. Astronomia nova. Trad. William Donahue. Santa Fe: Green Lion Press.

Kuhn, T. 1971 [1962]. La estructura de las revoluciones científicas. Trad. Agustín Contin. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Kuhn, T. 1970. Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Reearch? In: I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, p. 1-23. Cambridge U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Latour, B. 2001 [1999]. La esperanza de Pandora. Trad. Tomás Fernández Aúz. Barcelona: Gedisa Editorial.

Longino, H. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

McMullin, E. 1987 [1979]. Scientific Controversy and its Termination. In: T. Engelhardt & A. L. Caplan (eds.), Scientific Controversies, p. 49-91. Cambridge (U.K.): Cambridge University Press.

Nudler, O. (ed.). 2011. Controversy Spaces A model of scientific and philosophical change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Pera, M. 1994. The Discourses of Sciences. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Pera, M. 2000. Rhetoric and Scientific Controversies. In: P. Machamer; M. Pera; A. Baltas (eds), Scientific Controversies, Philosophical and Historical Perspectives, p. 50-66. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.

Popper, K. 2007 [1972]. Conocimiento objetivo. Trad. Carlos Solís Santos. Madrid: Editorial Tecnos.

Quine W. V. O. 1974. Roots of Reference. La Salle (Il): Open Court.

Reichenbach, H. 2006 [1938]. Experience and Prediction. Notre Dame (In): University of Notre Dame Press.

Strien, M. van. 2020a. Pluralism and Anarchism in Quantum Physics Paul Feyerabend’s writings on quantum physics in relation to his general philosophy of science. Studies in History and Philososphy of Science, 80: 72-81.

Strien, M. van. 2020b. Bohm’s Theory of Quantum Mechanics and the Notion of Classicality. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 71: 72-86.

Vinci, L. da. 1970. Trattato della Pittura. Trad. J. P. Richter (edit. y trad.) 1970 [1883]. The Literary Works of Leonado da Vinci, vol. 1, p. 14-393. Nueva York: Phaidon Publishers Inc., 2 vols.